Minutes Nov 21, 2013

----------------------------------------

DRAFT MINUTES

OASIS WS-BRSP TC Meeting

21 November 2013, 11:00am to noon PDT

----------------------------------------

Scribe: Jacques Durand

0. Call to Order and roll call

Jacques Durand calls the meeting to order and welcomes everyone.

* Roll call:

Ram Jeyaraman

Jacques Durand

Alessio Soldano

Tom Rutt

Micah Hainline

Gershon Janssen

Excused:

Doug Davis

This meeting is quorate.

Agenda adopted.

1. Administrative: min Oct 31. (to be posted)

2. Test Tools follow-up status (short)

3. Public Review feedback:

- assessment: do we have major, "material" comments?

- rough classification:

(a) need no action at all,

(b) purely editorial, worth doing, (clarifications, typos...)

(d) classification pending (unsure which category)

Action Items:

AI-1: Jacques to do a more precise inventory of test tools

AI-2: Ram: will do inventory of Microsoft test tools, and also check current MSFT licensing terms.

AI-3: Jacques: to check WS-I licensing with Jamie, does it have any impact,

AI-4: Everyone who developed test tools in the past, to check if their company is OK with an OSS style licensing.

Minutes:

1. Administrative: min Oct 31. (postponed)

2. Test Tools follow-up status (short)

No progress.

3. Public Review feedback:

- assessment: do we have major, "material" comments?

- rough classification:

(a) need no action at all,

(b) purely editorial, worth doing, (clarifications, typos...)

(d) classification pending (unsure which category)

1. Administrative: min Oct 31. External question about rationale for Intl std if we do.

- minutes Sept 26.: approved.

- long-term goal: ISO specs, as for 1st batch of WS profiles?

- Tom: depends on the market demand. E.g. a need for a clear rationale for WS-addressing use?

OASIS standards can stillbe referenced by JTC1. But ISO status is good for government adoption.

Reminder of categories:

- Bucket C1: need not be addressed: the TC can ignore it, i.e. no change in the spec

(although we’ll explain why in our comment disposition)

- Bucket C2: need a non-material spec change (see definition below) that the TC should do,

for the sake of spec quality and also because editorial requirements may need this for OS status.

- Bucket C3: need a material spec change: the fix may affect implementations and the

normative meaning of the specification.

- Bucket C4: don’t know exactly where to classify this comment (1,2,3?)

“Non-Material Change" is any change to the content of a Work Product

(i.e. specification) that does not add or remove any feature of the Work Product and that: (a) constitutes only error corrections, editorial changes, or formatting changes;…”. A Non-material comment does not require another public review, when fixed.

Tom: lots of C2 , no C3 comments.

Ram: What are "blocker" comments? some could be material changes.

Micah: need to better distinguish Normative vs. non-normative content.

Tom will handle the reference related comments.

Jacques will work on teh conformance-related.

Summary of Jacques review:

Summary of my own review of BP1.2 :

- The reviewer has categorized comments as minor / major / critical / blocker. We need to answer properly the “major / critical / blocker”

- A short list of the major comment types:

1. General packaging : should all profiles be a single Work product (single spec)? (TAB-400)

2. Confusion about Test Assertions status: normative/not? (TAB-265)

3. Confusion about Appendix status: normative/not? (TAB-302)

4. Confusion about some examples status: normative/not? (TAB-290)

5. Conformance Claim mechanism itself: normative or not? (TAB-278)

6. References and citations need major clean-up, some need be updated? (TAB-165, TAB-222, TAB-167, TAB-155, TAB-301)

7. HTML validation issues (TAB-120)

8. Normative scope of content: only the Rxxx or more? (TAB-267)

4. Adjourn

ws-brsp message